This page is part of the web mail archives of SRFI 120 from before July 7th, 2015. The new archives for SRFI 120 contain all messages, not just those from before July 7th, 2015.
> It should be where the `thunk` is captured. I'm not sure if I understand
> what you meant correctly. Could you maybe give me a clear example why
> this needs to be clarified?
I see now that it has to be at timer-schedule!, but you should still
say that the thunk runs in the dynamic environment of the call to
timer-schedule!
> You mean `make-timer` and `timer-start!`?
Yes, I meant that.
> The reason why I've added the time object is that it can handle nano
> second. If users want to make smaller unit of period, then at least the
> SRFI can handle it. Or it might be better to let the integer represents
> nano second instead of milli second. Any opinion?
I think milliseconds is fine. I just don't want an explicit dependency
on SRFI 18/19 here. So integers or implementation-defined things,
which could be SRFI 19 time objects or something else.
> The idea behind this is that if other process (not thread) want to stop
> a task, then it needs to be a readable datum.
That's a good point. I withdraw my request.
--
John Cowan http://www.ccil.org/~cowan cowan@xxxxxxxx
Pour moi, les villes du Silmarillion ont plus de realite que Babylone.
--Christopher Tolkien being interviewed by Le Monde